dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 15, 2024 In Re: 30625525 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree, as well as a national interest waiver of the job 
offer requirement attached to this EB-2 classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or an individual 
of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. If a 
petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then establish that 
they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the 
term "national interest," Matter of Dhanasar , 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the 
framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if 
the petitioner demonstrates that: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
1 See also Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and 
Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director's decision did not render a determination as to whether the Petitioner qualifies as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree. Instead, the decision only addressed the 
Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver. Therefore, the issue for consideration on appeal is 
whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor 
certification, would be in the national interest. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the 
Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of her proposed endeavor and that 
she is well-positioned to advance that endeavor under the first and second prongs of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. 2 
With respect to her proposed endeavor, the Petitioner indicated that she intends to "develop a consulting 
service, especially in relation to strengthening of marketing and the accounting-administrative area of 
small companies." She asserted that she planned to open "a specialized consulting and advisory company 
in strengthening the marketing and accounting-administrative area of small companies nationwide." The 
Petitioner further explained that "an initial diagnosis is made to the client, which results in a report 
showing its weaknesses and strengths. This report is intended to quickly and truthfully identify the 
opportunities for improvement that the company is presenting .... " 
In response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner stated: 
My proposed endeavor is to take advantage of my extensive experience in fiscal growth, 
business development, and organizational structuring in order to improve the internal 
structuring and solidity of United States small to medium sized enterprises (SMEs). 
Specifically, I will work with these businesses ... to develop unique strategies to improve 
their operations and efficiency, providing these businesses with the tools they need to 
thrive in a competitive marketplace. Also, my work will allow these businesses to grow, 
generating new hires, and ultimately leading to improving the economy overall. As I work 
with SMEs and develop individualized strategies, I also plan to disseminate my work at 
relevant conferences. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
individual proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such 
as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. In determining 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Director's decision did not render a determination as to whether 
the Petitioner meets this prong. 
2 Because the Petitioner has not demonstrated her eligibility for a national interest waiver on appeal, we need not remand 
the decision for the Director to determine whether she qualifies for the underlying EB-2 visa classification. 
2 
The record includes information about SMEs, the U.S. Small Business Administration's Office of 
Advocacy, support for SMEs during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the U.S. Treasury Department's 
"Assistance for Small Businesses." The Petitioner also submitted articles discussing small businesses' 
value to local economies; micro, small, and medium enterprises trends for 2022; business advice for 
entrepreneurship and small firms; the rise in corporate bankruptcies; the impact of COVID-19 on small 
business owners; and the ways that small businesses help the economy. In addition, she provided 
information about the Biden Administration's "American Jobs Plan," "American Rescue Plan," 
"Immediate Priorities," "Interim National Security Strategic Guidance," and "initiative to increase 
federal contracting with small disadvantaged businesses." We conclude that the aforementioned 
information, the Petitioner's statements, and other evidence in the record help show that her proposed 
endeavor has substantial merit. 
In determining national importance, however, the relevant question is not the value of small businesses 
or government initiatives that support them; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasa r, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner must still 
demonstrate the potential prospective impact of her specific proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner also provided letters of support from L-H-R-D-, A-Y-M-Y, C-C-, C-O-, S-M-R-C, D­
G-P-, L-L-, and J-A-A- discussing her business capabilities and experience. The Petitioner's 
education, skills, knowledge, and prior work in her field, however, relate to the second prong of the 
Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." 
Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor that she proposes to undertake has national 
importance under Dhana sar 's fust prong . 
The Petitioner has not provided evidence demonstrating that her proposed business activities would 
operate on such a scale as to rise to a level of national importance. It is insufficient to claim an 
endeavor has national importance or would create a broad impact without providing evidence to 
substantiate such claims. Furthermore, while any basic economic activity has the potential to 
positively impact the economy, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the potential economic 
activity of her specific endeavor stands to generate substantial positive economic effects in the region 
where her company will operate or in other parts of the United States. 
In determining national importance, we explained in Dhanasar that "we look for broader implications" 
of the proposed endeavor and that "[a]n undertaking may have national importance for example, 
because it bas national or even global implications within a particular field." Id. at 889. We also 
stated that"[ a ]n endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial 
positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, for instance, may well be 
understood to have national importance." Id. at 890. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of her work. While the 
Petitioner's statements reflect her intention to provide business development and structuring services 
to her company's clients, she has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that 
the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. In 
Dhanasa r, we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of having 
national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893 . Here, we 
3 
conclude the Petitioner has not shown that her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond 
her company and its future clientele to impact her field, the business consulting industry, or the U.S. 
economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake 
has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic 
effects for our nation. Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic 
impact or job creation attributable to her future work, the record does not show that benefits to the regional 
or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's business projects would reach the level of"substantial 
positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
For the aforementioned reasons, the Petitioner 's proposed work does not meet the fust prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. 
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the individual. To determine whether 
they are well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, but not 
limited to: their education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or similar efforts; a 
model or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor; and the 
interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals. Id. at 890. 
We adopt and affirm the Director's decision that the Petitioner does not meet Dhanasar's second 
prong. See Matter ofBurbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 
230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice of adopting and affirming the decision below has 
been "universally accepted by every other circuit that has squarely confronted this issue"); Chen v. 
INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (joining eight U.S. Court of Appeals in holding the appellate 
adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they give "individualized 
consideration" to the case). The Director thoroughly reviewed, discussed, and analyzed the 
Petitioner's claims that she is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor under the second 
prong of Dhanasar, as well as her academic record, recommendation letters, work experience, and 
letters of interest from two potential customers. 
While the letters of support, training certificates, and other evidence in the record indicate that the 
Petitioner has some experience in sales, marketing, accounting, and business administration, the record 
does not show that this past experience renders her well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor 
aimed at operating a business consulting and advisory company for SMEs. Nor do the Petitioner 's two 
personal statements discussing her plans to operate a consulting company offer sufficient details 
relating to her proposed endeavor to conclude that she is well positioned to advance that endeavor. 
We acknowledge the two letters from L-L- and J-A-A- expressing interest in utilizing the Petitioner's 
consultancy services. This evidence, however, does not reflect a level of interest from potential 
customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals demonstrating that she is well 
positioned to advance her proposed endeavor. Furthermore, the Petitioner has not shown that her track 
record of running a business, business plan for future activities, and progress towards achieving her 
company's goals render her well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. Accordingly, we agree 
4 
with the Director that the Petitioner has not established she satisfies the second prong of the Dhanasar 
framework. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the 
requisite first and second prongs of the Dhanasar analytical framework, 3 
we conclude that she has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each 
considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 Because the documentation in the record does not establish the Petitioner meets the first and second prongs of the Dhanasar 
precedent decision, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since these issues are 
dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding her 
eligibility under the third prong outlined in Dhanasar. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies 
are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter 
of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is 
otherwise ineligible). 
5